Irja is the belief that actions have no impact on one's Iman, and that one can do whatever he likes in his life, so long as he believes in his heart he will receive the salvation. It is a heretical belief which comes in various forms and it has various symptoms such as to claim that iman neither increases nor decreases, or that a person may only become a kafir by disbelieving in his heart and that kufr of actions can never expel one from Islam, or that if a person abandons Islam altogether, save the first pillar, he still remains a Muslim, even if he refuses to pray and fast so long as he acknowledges that all these are obligations.

Irja is one of the worst form of heresies and the Salaf warned the Sunnis from accompanying and entertaining Murji heretics. Some of the Salaf said that they are more dangerous than the azariqa, a strand of the Khawarij.

7 - According to the Sharee'ah wordings, disbelief (kufr) is of two types: The
greater disbelief (kufr akbar), which expels a person from the fold of Islaam
completely, and the lesser disbelief (kufr asghar), which does not expel a
person from the fold of Islaam. This second type is sometimes known as kufr
'amalee (disbelief in action).

The last sentence is wrong isn't it? Kufr 'amalee can be both Kufr asghar or akbar, right?

Irja is the belief that actions have no impact on one's Iman, and that one can do whatever he likes in his life, so long as he believes in his heart he will receive the salvation. It is a heretical belief which comes in various forms and it has various symptoms such as to claim that iman neither increases nor decreases, or that a person may only become a kafir by disbelieving in his heart and that kufr of actions can never expel one from Islam, or that if a person abandons Islam altogether, save the first pillar, he still remains a Muslim, even if he refuses to pray and fast so long as he acknowledges that all these are obligations.

Irja is one of the worst form of heresies and the Salaf warned the Sunnis from accompanying and entertaining Murji heretics. Some of the Salaf said that they are more dangerous than the azariqa, a strand of the Khawarij.

The last sentence is wrong isn't it? Kufr 'amalee can be both Kufr asghar or akbar, right?

Click to expand...

It isn't wrong because most of the kufr 'amali tends to be minor and hence the scholars often make such generalisations. But they do not mean that actions never expel a person from Iman.

Isn't it a hanafi position that action is not included?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. But what I have come to realise is that practically speaking the difference between them and the Salaf is superficial because the hanafis consider actions of the heart (such as love and hate) to be included in Iman, an don this basis they still make takfeer based on actions, as to them they are indicative of one's statement of actions of the heart.

For instance, some of them say that if a person grabs hold of a stick beating the kids with it in order to mock a Quran teacher he is a kafir, because in his heart he is belittling the Quran teacher because he teaches the Quran. Likewise, some of them say that if a person prays without wudhu he is a kafir, because this is belittlement of Salah. So they declare a person to be a kafir based on his actions, even though they do not consider actions to be part of Iman. Allahu Alam.

Irja is the belief that actions have no impact on one's Iman, and that one can do whatever he likes in his life, so long as he believes in his heart he will receive the salvation. It is a heretical belief which comes in various forms and it has various symptoms such as to claim that iman neither increases nor decreases, or that a person may only become a kafir by disbelieving in his heart and that kufr of actions can never expel one from Islam, or that if a person abandons Islam altogether, save the first pillar, he still remains a Muslim, even if he refuses to pray and fast so long as he acknowledges that all these are obligations.

Irja is one of the worst form of heresies and the Salaf warned the Sunnis from accompanying and entertaining Murji heretics. Some of the Salaf said that they are more dangerous than the azariqa, a strand of the Khawarij.

Click to expand...

Subhaan Allaah, this is quite worrying

I've been reffered to being a muji'ah and after reading the above I am a bit concerened. I'm sure there must be more to this, like giving a person the benefit of the doubt and also bringing proof against a person before we claim they are out of islaam.

Am I correct in thinking that there are stages before we can make such a claim (that a person is not a muslim)

I used to think like this , we cant see their heart so how can we know, but if you look at the issue of the hijab , where you hear sisters say that the hijab is in the heart , you realise that cant be true at all , because for something to be in the heart means you love it , if you love something it shows , ie your child , you hug them you kiss them you cook for them , the love shows in our actions , so if you have the hijab in your heart then you will love to wear it.
Thats what made me understand this issue better.

((Theoretically, yes. But what I have come to realise is that practically speaking the difference between them and the Salaf is superficial because the hanafis consider actions of the heart (such as love and hate) to be included in Iman, an don this basis they still make takfeer based on actions, as to them they are indicative of one's statement of actions of the heart.

For instance, some of them say that if a person grabs hold of a stick beating the kids with it in order to mock a Quran teacher he is a kafir, because in his heart he is belittling the Quran teacher because he teaches the Quran. Likewise, some of them say that if a person prays without wudhu he is a kafir, because this is belittlement of Salah. So they declare a person to be a kafir based on his actions, even though they do not consider actions to be part of Iman. Allah))

notice your statement ((as to them they are "indicative" of one's statement of actions of the heart))

This is the same thing that shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah believed, so why didn't you apply the same to him? that the difference is superficial?

Remember the issue of salat, when he declared the person who abandons salat completely to be kafir because his action (abandonment of salat completely) "indicates" that he doesn't have iman in his heart, or something like that (don't remember the exact statement).

notice your statement ((as to them they are "indicative" of one's statement of actions of the heart))

This is the same thing that shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah believed, so why didn't you apply the same to him? that the difference is superficial?

Click to expand...

Hanafis are very harsh in this regard. Mulla Ali al-Qari related from some of the ahnaf that if one congratulates religious festivals of mushrikin, he himself becomes mushrik. Or hanafis said that if som drinks alcohol and father says "bravo! well done!" then he becomes kafir...
Well, the views of hanafies were related by Abu Bakr ash-Shafi and he after each quote said that shafi's disagreed with ahnaf. So basically, ahnaf were harsher in this regard and brother Abu Zubair tried to explain it!
Shaikh al-Albani had several issues:
1. In one of his cassetes with al-Anbari, Shaikh al-Albani made some observations when Khalid al-Anbari read some passages from a book to Shaikh al-Albani and al-Albani - rahimahullah - repeteadly argued against al-Anbari that "iman" and "tasdiq" is the same and they have no difference, thus if a believer is a musaddiq, and if he becomes kafir, then he is no longer musaddiq, he is mukazzib. al-Albani argued that Iblis is not a musaddiq, i.e. he had no tasdiq in his heart. It implies that kufr is only takzib, so all outward disbelief is a minor disbelief.
That's the same what murji'a say, ever murjiatul-fuqaha say it and Ibn Taimiyya has a long refutation against them in his book "al-Iman", the seventh volume of Majmu' al-Fatawa.
2. Shaikh al-Albani agrees that outward actions are indicative of what in the heart, but he doesnt make takfir merely upon these actions, he believes that we should be assured that these actions are followed with an explicit "takzib"...that's Shaikh al-Albani's mistakes! and these are mistakes of irja!

Remember the issue of salat, when he declared the person who abandons salat completely to be kafir because his action (abandonment of salat completely) "indicates" that he doesn't have iman in his heart, or something like that (don't remember the exact statement).

Click to expand...

Shaikh al-Albani never said that who completely abandones salah becomes kafir. What shaikh al-Albani said was about a person who is order to pray and he rejects to pray, and he is brought to be executed and he is asked for the last time to repent and if this man prefers death over salah, then he is kafir without doubt. This is what al-Albani said in his book Hukm Tarik as-Salah

I've been reffered to being a muji'ah and after reading the above I am a bit concerened. I'm sure there must be more to this, like giving a person the benefit of the doubt and also bringing proof against a person before we claim they are out of islaam.

Am I correct in thinking that there are stages before we can make such a claim (that a person is not a muslim)

and also can we as laymen make this claim against such a person?

Click to expand...

Don't be over worried if you get called names by ppl when they should be trying to explain things to you before calling names. Also, nowadays, some people would call you a Murji for not making takfeer on teletubbies. But if it inspires you to learn about the topic then surely it can't be bad.

There are two issues involved here:
1) Understanding the kufr occurs by words and actions irrespective of one's belief in the heart
2) The person who falls into kufr is to be declared a kafir, unless he has a valid shara'i excuse

So if a person insists that the one who does an act of kufr cannot be a kafir unless and until he believes in the permissibility of doing that act then he is a murji.

Likewise, if a person refuses to make takfeer on someone who is a clear cut kafir and makes up all the non-shara'i excuse in order to avoid takfeer then no doubt this is also irja, but it is a form of irja which, in my humble opinion, only surfaced within the last couple of centuries.

Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's Da'wah was geared against these two types of innovations, i.e.; a) not recognising that grave-worshipping is Shirk Akbar and b) not declaring those who worshipped graves as Mushriks.

When it comes to takfeer then there are certain cases where you must make takfeer and other cases where one should be cautious if he/she doesn't know. For instance, if a person claims that Jibril mistakenly gave the Quran to the Prophet SAW as he should have given it to 'Ali, then not only he is a kafir but also the one who doubts his kufr is also a kafir. So here one should never ever desist from making takfeer. Likewise, the one who refuses to make takfeer on the jews, christians, qadiyanis and the communists, etc, he is a kafir himself, and hence, takfeer is a very important principle in our religion, such that abstaining from it can expel one from religion.

Yet, there are other issues that are not as clear cut as the issues mentioned above, such as practising white magic or some issues of Allah's names and attributes, punishment of the grave, etc where people, if they are not sure, should desist from takfeer, until they themselves understand the issue well.

I used to think like this , we cant see their heart so how can we know, but if you look at the issue of the hijab , where you hear sisters say that the hijab is in the heart , you realise that cant be true at all , because for something to be in the heart means you love it , if you love something it shows , ie your child , you hug them you kiss them you cook for them , the love shows in our actions , so if you have the hijab in your heart then you will love to wear it.
Thats what made me understand this issue better.

Click to expand...

JK for this. Very good example and an excellent way to illustrate the topic.

((Theoretically, yes. But what I have come to realise is that practically speaking the difference between them and the Salaf is superficial because the hanafis consider actions of the heart (such as love and hate) to be included in Iman, an don this basis they still make takfeer based on actions, as to them they are indicative of one's statement of actions of the heart.

For instance, some of them say that if a person grabs hold of a stick beating the kids with it in order to mock a Quran teacher he is a kafir, because in his heart he is belittling the Quran teacher because he teaches the Quran. Likewise, some of them say that if a person prays without wudhu he is a kafir, because this is belittlement of Salah. So they declare a person to be a kafir based on his actions, even though they do not consider actions to be part of Iman. Allah))

notice your statement ((as to them they are "indicative" of one's statement of actions of the heart))

This is the same thing that shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah believed, so why didn't you apply the same to him? that the difference is superficial?

Remember the issue of salat, when he declared the person who abandons salat completely to be kafir because his action (abandonment of salat completely) "indicates" that he doesn't have iman in his heart, or something like that (don't remember the exact statement).

Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there.

I meant that the Hanafis consider actions of the heart to be included in Iman, and due to that they make takfeer on certain actions because they are indicative of the state of the actions of the heart. I.e. A person doesn't curse Allah and His Messenger except that he hates them and this is kufr, i.e. hating them kufr.

al-Albani on the other hand hardly discusses actions of the heart and in his tape Kufr Kufran he explicitly states that the one who curses Allah and His Messenger cannot be declared a kafir in absolute terms because he may be a jahil or have had a bad upbringing. He also explicitly states that actions are Shart Kamal al-Iman, and as such, if one abandons all actions he still remains a Muslim. He even goes to the length of basing his opinion on the hadeeth of bitaqa. So his opinion on the topic is very clear, and his beliefs were and still are being championed by Ali Hasan al-Halabi, al-'Anbari and al-Zahrani against whom the Lajna passed the verdicts.

With regards to the relationships between deeds and faith, I think we can also look at it from another perspective:

(1) righteous deeds
(2) sinful deeds

Righteous Deeds

(1) Amongst righteous deeds, some are an essential part of Iman, such that if one does not have them, he is a disbeliever. This is particularly important in relation to the four pillars after the shahadatayn.

The majority of the early Ahl al-Hadith scholars held that the one who does not pray is a kafir. Many of them extended this to some or all of the other pillars as well: zakah, siyam, and hajj.

Those of Ahl al-Sunna who do not mandate any of these pillars in particular as necessary for Iman still affirm that actions, in general, are a necessary product of Iman. Therefore, if one is completely devoid of sincere righteous deeds, he is still a disbeliever.

In truth, the kufr of the tarik al-salah is well established do the strong textual evidences and the ijma' of the Sahaba on this matter.

(2) Then there are those deeds that are obligatory but the one who does not perform them is still a Muslim or a believer with deficient faith. The presence of these increases faith while their absence causes it to decrease.

(3) Deeds that are meritorious such as nafl prayers. Performing such deeds increases one's faith but refraining from doing so does not negatively impact his faith.

Sinful Deeds

(1) Most sinful deeds will diminish a person's level of faith but will not remove a person from the circle of Islam altogether.

(2) Certain deeds have been designated by Allah and His Messenger as kufr or there are legal evidences that prove they are kufr. Commission of such deeds nullifies a person's faith and expels him from Islam. These matters are detailed in the works of Fiqh under the chapters of apostasy. Some of the most prominent ones are also dealt with by Sh. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his ten Nullifiers of Islam (Nawaqid al-Islam).

Shaikh al-Albani never said that who completely abandones salah becomes kafir. What shaikh al-Albani said was about a person who is order to pray and he rejects to pray, and he is brought to be executed and he is asked for the last time to repent and if this man prefers death over salah, then he is kafir without doubt. This is what al-Albani said in his book Hukm Tarik as-Salah

And Allah knows best!

Click to expand...

He actually based his risala on tark al-salah on the hadith of those who will get out of Hell without deeds. He considered this a clear-cut proof on the issue as the one who has no deeds will have no salah. He did not make this an exceptional case. He used it as a general proof that the tarik al-salah cannot be kafir.

Leaving aside whether or not he was right about the issue of tarik al-salah in particular, there is a greater problem here. The premise on which he based his position is a premise of Irja'.

Rasheed has mentioned in other threads that there is a quote from Sh. al-Albani that he said it is inconceivable for a person who has true iman to go a lifetime without doing deeds. If that is followed to its logical conclusion, and we say this hadith speaks about exceptional cases, Sh. al-Albani would not have been able to apply it generally as a proof concerning tark al-salah.

This is why Sh. Safar respectfully advised him to give this issue another look.

Here are some quotes from shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah in regards to tark salat, indicating that he believes that who doesn't pray at all, abandons salat completely, is kafir, because it "indicates" 'inad and istikbar in the heart, not just because of abandoning it, but because abandoning it "indicates" kufr in heart
The following is taken from Bahamran's book:

In regards to shaikh Ibn Uthaimin rahimahu Allah, he says in his sharh of 40 Nawawiya that he believes that one who abandons salat completely is kafir, but one who leaves only some prayers (not abandoning salat completely) is not kafir, which is not the opinion of many Salafi scholars, who believe that leaving one or 2 prayers is kufr.

I am not sure if he had a different opinion before that, or after it, but I will bring his statement in sharh 40 insha Allah.

((I meant that the Hanafis consider actions of the heart to be included in Iman, and due to that they make takfeer on certain actions because they are indicative of the state of the actions of the heart. I.e. A person doesn't curse Allah and His Messenger except that he hates them and this is kufr, i.e. hating them kufr.))

from what I understand from this is that reason for his kufr is the heart not the action, meaning that he is kafir because his actions "indicate" that he has kufr in his heart (an action of the heart that is considered kufr >> i.e. hating Allah and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

so what is the difference between that and shaikh Albani's opinion?
You said in a reply in the other discussion about Albani rahimahu Allah and irja:

[[So even prostrating to an idol, eventually goes back to the kufr of the heart, and this is what he is declaring to be kufr, NOT the action on its own, ]]

what is the difference between this and what you said about Hanafis? that they made takfir on him because they believe that the actions "indicate" kufr in his heart, all goes back to the heart, its actions.
And istikbar, 'inad and israr are actions of the heart.

((al-Albani on the other hand hardly discusses actions of the heart and in his tape Kufr Kufran he explicitly states that the one who curses Allah and His Messenger cannot be declared a kafir in absolute terms because he may be a jahil or have had a bad upbringing.))

If my memory is not fooling me, I remember reading something from shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah regarding actions of the heart, but I will have to research that to be sure, I can't always trust my memory.
as for cursing, you don't even know what he meant by jahil, and bad upbringing, your going by ur interpretation of his statement.
when I read his fatwa, first thing came to my mind was jahil of its "meaning", NOT HUKM,
And I have brought a fatwa before of someone asking about cursing deen without knowing they were cursing the deen because of not knowing the meaning of a word they were saying in their curse, they just imitated what they heard their fathers' say when cursing, and they picked it up when they were kids.
I was brought up in society where a lot of cursing of deen (sab ad-deen) happens, and many say it not knowing its meaning, or not paying attention to what they are cursing, they usually say it in extreme anger, and if you spoke to them after saying it, when calm, telling them that they cursed the deen, which is kufr, they would ask Allah for forgiveness and try to quit it.
As for tarbiya, it happens that someone who grew up saying that curse out of ignorance of its meaning, or not paying attention to the words he is saying, becasue of him just copying older people when they were children, it becomes a habit when he is angry to use those curse words, even when he is informed about it, it takes sometime to rid oneself from the bad habit.
Like in our country people are so used to swearing by the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, it became part of our language, when I learned that it was shirk, I tried to quit it, but I found myself saying it without being aware that I said it !
And my friend would notice me saying it when speaking to someone, and she would inform me that I said it, so I would make istighfar and say shahadah, it took a few more warnings from my dear friend (sister in Islam) before I found myself not saying it anymore, alhamdulillah. I know other sisters from my country who had the same problem, and still say it automatically, not realizing they said it, but they don't have anyone around them who would warn them when they say it. I was lucky to have a friend who had knowledge in deen and would warn me, may Allah reward her.
so the same thing would be with curse words that a person had a habit saying when very angry since a young age, being unaware of what he is saying at the moment.

You have to know what the shaikh exactly meant by his statement. What came to my mind is what I wrote above because of the society I grew up in, that is what happens, and many Muslims fall into that, even family members, bad language and cursing is so rampent in society, it is sad.

As for reading Abu Rahim's book, I will insha Allah after reading all of shaikh Albani's books on this matter insha Allah.
Until now what I see others quoting shaikh saying something that indicates irja', I see other statements that contradict those statements by him, or that explain what he means.
so it is still not black and white to me like it seems to others.
That is why I like to read it myself, and not depend on other people's conclusions.

Translation of the last part which gives a summary of his opinion:
((And some of the people of knowledge of the past and present believe that leaving one prayer until its time has passed without an excuse is kufr.
But my opinion is: that he doesn't become a kafir except when abandoning prayer completely)). end of quote

Maybe shaikh Albani rahimahu Allah misunderstood the shaikh's opinion, or someone misinformed him or maybe the shaikh (Ibn Uthaimain) had a different opinion in the past, Allahu a'lam.

Sh. al-Albani would not have been able to apply it generally as a proof concerning tark al-salah.

Click to expand...

There are many other deeds lesser than salah that a person can do throughout his lifetime even though he does not pray, e.g., there are people today who do not pray, yet fast Ramadan or go for Hajj. Leaving off the salah is not the same as leaving off deeds in their entirety.

Isn't there a hadith about good deeds not being accepted if one does not pray?
or something about the day of judgment, first thing one is asked about or is checked is salat, if it is not accepted or not present then the rest of the deeds are not accepted?